read_page

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns full extracted text and notes when output may be garbled, advising an alternative. Does not mention error cases or side effects, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured: a one-sentence summary, usage guidelines, parameter details, and return value. Each sentence is informative and concise, with no redundant or wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description states 'Returns: Full extracted text of the page,' which is sufficient. It also covers practical context (when to use image version, subfolder handling). The tool is simple, and the description covers all necessary aspects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds detailed meaning: filename must be exact from search results, page is 1-based, subfolder is required when duplicates exist and empty string means root. This fully clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Read the full text of a specific page from an indexed PDF,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_page_image (renders as PNG) and search (used before reading).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use after search() to read the complete page content around a match' and 'If the result contains garbled text... use read_page_image() instead — it renders the page as a PNG.' Also explains when subfolder parameter is required, providing clear use vs. non-use conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.